Winter Meetings thread

[Michael Busch Light]

25 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

If I read a rumor that Kyle Tucker was seen singing "Go Cubs Go!" at Murphy's Bleachers, I'm done with baseball.

Jake Peavy and Brian Roberts were also there with him. 

[Jason Ross]

On the Roger's comment about believing the Cubs will be unlikely to extend him - I think that's just prudent. Tucker will want top dollar and a contract probably 2x any Cub contract before. Signing him will be tricky. I think you have to assume it's unlikely until they can or do. 

I do think the Cubs are not making a Tucker trade only with an eye on one year and a QO pick. There has to be some feeling he'd be interested in sitting down and talking. 

[UMFan83]

18 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

If they trade forTucker and use near ready mlb players they have to at least try to lock him up long term. Maybe not right away but before the season. 
 

it makes little sense to blow through top level prospects for a rental on a team in the Cubs competition cycle 

I agree but if you’re Tucker and you just saw Soto wait out his contact and get the largest deal in baseball history how eager are you to sign an extension early rather than test the open market?  Maybe having security is something enticing to him but if it’s not it makes much more sense to wait it out. If that prevents him from getting traded then he gets to stay somewhere he’s comfortable and makes the playoffs every year. 

I highly doubt Jed makes a Tucker trade hoping to get an extension done this offseason and is willing to take the risk of him playing 1 season in Chicago and bolting.  I certainly don’t see Jed offering a contract that blows Tucker away enough to sign early. That’s just not Jed Hoyer. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

7 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

I agree but if you’re Tucker and you just saw Soto wait out his contact and get the largest deal in baseball history how eager are you to sign an extension early rather than test the open market?  Maybe having security is something enticing to him but if it’s not it makes much more sense to wait it out. If that prevents him from getting traded then he gets to stay somewhere he’s comfortable and makes the playoffs every year. 

I highly doubt Jed makes a Tucker trade hoping to get an extension done this offseason and is willing to take the risk of him playing 1 season in Chicago and bolting.  I certainly don’t see Jed offering a contract that blows Tucker away enough to sign early. That’s just not Jed Hoyer. 

I think there's room for nuance here.  They may not be able to make a deal contingent on an extension, orwith a negotiating window they can back out of. But you can get a sense for Tucker's willingness and ask to know about the probability of getting him signed.

[Bertz]

Juan Soto is getting brought up way too much into relation to Kyle Tucker.  Kyle Tucker is tracking towards like Corey Seager money.

[KCCub]

 

[Bertz]

 

Quote

,Bellinger looked like the best fit of all as a lefty-hitting first baseman/center fielder, and while the Yankees and Cubs were still apart on money, there was said to be a bit of progress late Wednesday.

Quote

 

The Yankees were also seriously pursuing Astros superstar Kyle Tucker in trade, and it felt almost certain he was going to be dealt somewhere.

However, there’s strong competition there, with the Phillies, Giants and especially Cubs gunning for Tucker.

The trade discussion with the North Siders revolved around right fielder Seiya Suzuki and third baseman Isaac Paredes, with the Astros also hoping for the Cubs to include one of their past two No. 1 draft choices — either 3B Cam Smith or SS Matt Shaw.

 

Not sure why the Yankees pursuing Tucker is written in past tense while everything else in the article is present.

The Bellinger stuff seems most worth noting given Heyman's ties to Boras.

[Andy]

1 hour ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

Trading for Tucker and then not extending him is peak stupidity 

As UMF said, I'm sure the Cubs aren't looking at this knowing they will make no effort to keep him after a year. But by the same token Tucker probably isn't going to be signing any kind of extension after seeing the money Soto got unless it's what he expects to get in free agency.

[Bertz]

The just a rental stuff is not a Jed thing it's just standard hedge-y FO speak.  

 

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

Juan Soto is getting brought up way too much into relation to Kyle Tucker.  Kyle Tucker is tracking towards like Corey Seager money.

 

What would Corey Seager get this offseason if he were 28 y/o?  Willy Adames didn't get a crazy market price.  Maybe Willy's agent effed up by jumping the market a tad?

I guess Matthew Boyd was signed at market price given what SP are getting now?  If so, I apologize to Jed a bit for earlier comments.  Someone let me know if he gets this.

[Dfan25]

I think he ends up with the Yankees for Gil or Schmidt along with Rice 

Edited December 12, 2024 by Dfan25

[Stratos]

4 minutes ago, Dfan25 said:

I think he ends up with the Yankees for Gil or Schmidt along with Rice 

That might screw up the Bellinger trade.  Let's hope we don't blow the whole thing.

[Dfan25]

4 minutes ago, Stratos said:

That might screw up the Bellinger trade.  Let's hope we don't blow the whole thing.

I think the Yankees could get both TBH . They need 2 OF and a 1B . They are in on everybody it seems  i seriously doubt they are going to let the Cubs get Tucker .

 

 

[Jason Ross]

Every few years or so someone comes along and gets some massive deal and everyone says it's going to ruin extensions. It was that way for Harper a few years ago. It was Ohtani last year. It's Soto this year. 

Despite that, there are people who extend before they hit FA. Glasgow did last year. Devers the year before (though not a trade). 

Tucker may hit FA. But I think the Soto contract isn't a massive boogeyman here. If he wants to hit FA he will. But if the Cubs offer him market value, there's a real chance he could extend. 

[Jason Ross]

28 minutes ago, Dfan25 said:

I think he ends up with the Yankees for Gil or Schmidt along with Rice 

Other than not wanting to be hurt if the Cubs don't get him, is there any reason you believe this? I dont mean that rudely, just wondering if I'm missing something or if it's just tempering your own expectations 

To put it simply, the Cubs have better things to offer. The Yankees may be motivated but it seems Hoyer is too. I think the Cubs will get this over the line. 

[Stratos]

36 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Other than not wanting to be hurt if the Cubs don't get him, is there any reason you believe this? I dont mean that rudely, just wondering if I'm missing something or if it's just tempering your own expectations 

To put it simply, the Cubs have better things to offer. The Yankees may be motivated but it seems Hoyer is too. I think the Cubs will get this over the line. 

Let's hope, but I just don't know if the fit is good enough based on what the Astros need and will demand for that good of a player, and the prospects Jed may like to keep.  Can't see Seiya being happy at DH or Tucker given its his walk year, they'd have to rotate guys through DH.  Hard to see a solid 3B like Paredes go after years of punting the position, and we can use all the SP we have.

If it falls through we could still move Bellinger & it opens up options for us.  DH is an easy fill and there's 28 other teams with bats too, sign Carson Kelly, another SP, some late-inning pen arms incl. a lefty.

[JD94]

I understand that the Cubs just might not be able to resign Tucker if they trade for him. Things happen. He might prefer somewhere else. Might want to play closer to home. We might get “Cohen’ed” by somebody. Could be anything out of our control. That’s fine. 
 

My issue would be the Cubs giving up a ton of assets with no intentions at all to be willing to step out of their comfort zone and give a 10/3-400M contract out. I just don’t see the point. Yes. It would be cool for one year… but that’s just not the kind of risks I think this team should be taking at this point. I get the arguments. I agree with the “just get the star player and then see what happens.” My whole point is you have to at least be willing to step up to the big boy table when the time comes. If he signs elsewhere, at least you can say you took a shot, offered fair market value, but just missed out. At least we tried. But giving up 3 years of Parades, multiple years of Ben Brown (?), and another elite prospect (Shaw/Smith), just for one year of Kyle Tucker on a .500 team with zero intentions of getting anywhere close to his asking price in free agency would be as dumb as giving up Seyia & Parades & Smith. 
 

Trust me. I’m all aboard the acquiring Kyle Tucker train. I’ve refreshed Twitter constantly tonight hoping something breaks. Will watch it all day tomorrow. I just hope Jed isn’t stupid about this to try and save his job. 

[Stratos]

13 hours ago, squally1313 said:

I must be thinking about this wrong, but you're basically saying that if you're going to give up that much talent, you also want to give up an additional $20m for 2025 (to Tucker) plus his future production (at market rates). 

Trade for his 2025, figure out the rest after that. 

If you get an extension from Tucker at market rates (10/350 ish?) I'd say the value of getting the extension is more or less negligible.  You're not really "gaining" much if anything.  You also lose the QO.

If they trade for him they're paying for the 1 year at a solid surplus salary.  You could say any extension below market rates is added to the value of the trade but that's not in any way guaranteed so you can't really factor that into the trade calculation.

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, JD94 said:

My issue would be the Cubs giving up a ton of assets with no intentions at all to be willing to step out of their comfort zone and give a 10/3-400M contract out. I just don’t see the point. Yes. It would be cool for one year… but that’s just not the kind of risks I think this team should be taking at this point. I get the arguments. I agree with the “just get the star player and then see what happens.” My whole point is you have to at least be willing to step up to the big boy table when the time comes. If he signs elsewhere, at least you can say you took a shot, offered fair market value, but just missed out. At least we tried. But giving up 3 years of Parades, multiple years of Ben Brown (?), and another elite prospect (Shaw/Smith), just for one year of Kyle Tucker on a .500 team with zero intentions of getting anywhere close to his asking price in free agency would be as dumb as giving up Seyia & Parades & Smith. 
 

Trust me. I’m all aboard the acquiring Kyle Tucker train. I’ve refreshed Twitter constantly tonight hoping something breaks. Will watch it all day tomorrow. I just hope Jed isn’t stupid about this to try and save his job. 

I'm with you on this, though to be fair this could be the difference between winning the division or otherwise getting into the playoffs or not.

At the end of the day the Cubs have to calculate the value of Tucker vs the prospects.  Tucker is projected to make about 16-17m in arbitration.  His market value for 1 year is maybe 40m?  So we'd be getting like 23m in surplus value in a trade.

Paredes has surplus value the next 3 years, Seiya I assume has some also.  As for the prospects they'd probably need to have some kind of model to project what the average likely outcome for each prospect (any prospect can outperform or underperform their most likely outcome) in their system over 6 years of service time and what they'd project to be paid in arb and therefore their projected surplus value.

Then you compare those values vs Tucker's value for 1 year, plus maybe factor some intangibles or other factors like what else is available on the market and its price, and then FO would have a rough idea whether the trade makes sense or not.  I would imagine if Paredes was a FA right now and got a 3-year deal (same as his time left before FA) he'd be making 20m AAV at least.  He's projected at 6m in arbitration so that's good surplus obviously, plus the other 2 seasons.

[CubinNY]

4 hours ago, Stratos said:

If you get an extension from Tucker at market rates (10/350 ish?) I'd say the value of getting the extension is more or less negligible.  You're not really "gaining" much if anything.  You also lose the QO.

If they trade for him they're paying for the 1 year at a solid surplus salary.  You could say any extension below market rates is added to the value of the trade but that's not in any way guaranteed so you can't really factor that into the trade calculation.

Only keyboard GMs care about surplus value. They can’t keep hovering around .500 and dealing multiple players for one year rentals and expect to win. 

[Jason Ross]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

Let's hope, but I just don't know if the fit is good enough based on what the Astros need and will demand for that good of a player, and the prospects Jed may like to keep.  Can't see Seiya being happy at DH or Tucker given its his walk year, they'd have to rotate guys through DH.  Hard to see a solid 3B like Paredes go after years of punting the position, and we can use all the SP we have.

If it falls through we could still move Bellinger & it opens up options for us.  DH is an easy fill and there's 28 other teams with bats too, sign Carson Kelly, another SP, some late-inning pen arms incl. a lefty.

Why are people still latching onto this *one* report where the Astros asked for both guys? Jed was pretty open with the fact that he's almost assuredly coming back as a Cub and multiple reports have suggested the Cubs dont want to include him. This is how negotiating works: you ask the moon and hope to land among the stars. They're so very unlikely to trade both, and it shouldn't require both if we look at what teams have paid for similarly valued one-year players. Juan Soto went for less 365 days ago, and we all agree he's a better player. Another indication they're not including Suzuki; they're getting close to sending Bellinger out. Trading three starters away would put the Cubs in a pretty big bind. Theyre also on record stating they don't want a primary DH which limits any ability to replace a third starter. It all but eliminates guys like Joc Pederson as a fall back.

That Cubs match up amazingly with the Astros. They want a corner INF who's MLB ready and we know they love Parades (they were close to getting him in July). The Cubs have the deepest farm system at the Triple-A level in baseball. It may not be deepest overall but at the Triple-A level it probably is. They want SP? We have depth there too.

I understand people wanting to limit their own disappointment if it doesn't go down, but the Cubs have a better offer than the Yankees right now according to almost every report. They have more to offer than the Yankees, who have no obvious corner INF to give. They have a VP of Baseball Ops who has a good reason to make this happen. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen - it's always more likely a trade doesn't come together than it does. But we should probably stop inventing reasons why it won't, too, just to satisfy our own wants to limit disappointment. 

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Only keyboard GMs care about surplus value. They can’t keep hovering around .500 and dealing multiple players for one year rentals and expect to win. 

-Hey Jed would you like a really good player on a suppressed salary?

-Psh, what, do I look like some sort of nerd?

[Cuzi]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Only keyboard GMs care about surplus value. They can’t keep hovering around .500 and dealing multiple players for one year rentals and expect to win. 

Real GMs dont care about surplus value? Then why is a team that just offered up a $760M contract in a losing effort like the Yankees worried about how much money Bellinger is going to make in 2025?

The Cubs cant expect to win continuing to build a team on the margins. They are stuck in the mud at .500. Its time for this team to acquire some legit top tier talent because the player is a god damn star, not strictly because they are a defensive wizard.

[CubinNY]

A team has to pay market value for stars unless they do a really good job of developing players and can pay them less due to the rules established by MLB. This idea of surplus value is an illusion. If you have a guy on your team that you are paying less due to the rules, good work. But you can't expect to get established major league players at a discount. 

Baseball is about wins and losses and no one cares about efficiency except for keyboard wizards. 

[Cuzi]

What an out of touch ideology.

It's pretty ironic to sit here and say no one cares about efficiency as you poo poo the idea of trading for a 1 year rental because of efficiency.

Edited December 12, 2024 by Cuzi